Model merging has emerged as a lightweight paradigm for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs), yet its underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this work, we analyze late-stage pre-training trajectories and uncover a \textbf{Rank-1 Subspace} phenomenon: while raw optimization steps oscillate violently, consecutive \emph{merged} checkpoints collapse onto a stable, approximately one-dimensional linear manifold. We theoretically ground this observation in a \emph{river-valley} landscape analysis: averaging acts as a geometric low-pass filter that dampens high-curvature noise to reveal the optimal descent direction. Capitalizing on this insight, we propose \textbf{Extra-Merge}, a training-free strategy that extrapolates along this subspace to minimize loss without additional gradient updates. Extensive experiments across GPT-2 and LLaMA families (124M to 2B) demonstrate that Extra-Merge consistently outperforms standard merging baselines. Notably, it yields consistent zero-shot accuracy gains on Pythia-12B downstream tasks and generalizes effectively to the Muon optimizer \citep{jordan2024muon}.
Multi-task model merging combines separately trained expert models into a single model that handles all tasks without co-training. Standard practice merges experts at their optimal validation loss. We challenge this convention by systematically studying how training duration of domain experts affects the quality of the merged model. We fine-tune experts on five domains (Math, Code, Instruction Following, Multilingual, and Safety) across three model sizes (Qwen 3.5 0.8B, 2B, and 4B), saving checkpoints from 25% to 500% of the optimal training steps and evaluating five merging methods at each duration. Our findings reveal a striking method-dependent pattern: simple averaging degrades sharply with overfitting, while sparsification-based methods achieve their best performance well past the validation optimum. We formalize this through bias-variance decomposition analysis, drawing a parallel to random forests where averaging benefits from high-variance individual learners. These results suggest that training duration and merging method should be chosen jointly rather than independently.
Model merging has become a practical post-training strategy for building a single multi-task large language model (LLM) by combining multiple task-specialized models. However, most existing approaches rely on post-hoc merging, in which task-specific models are merged only once after training. This one-shot aggregation often suffers from task interference, leading to information erasure across individual tasks. In this work, we show that replacing post-hoc merging with an iterative many-shot merging protocol is effective in improving multi-task performance. Building on this insight, we propose METIS, Mitigating Erasure from Task Interference for Stable many-shot merging. METIS is a loss-aware many-shot merging method that addresses information erasure in post-hoc merging through task-wise loss-gap weighting and consensus-based masking. Notably, METIS exhibits significant performance improvement on the worst-performing task, effectively mitigating information erasure. (Project page: https://imkyungjin.github.io/METIS/)
Model merging plays a crucial role in consolidating multiple specialized models into a single, unified model, especially in the era of large language models (LLMs). Recent research has primarily focused on developing strategies to enhance merging performance with the trained models, while the impact of training paradigms, such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), on the effectiveness of model merging remains underexplored. In this study, we systematically explore the merging behavior of RL-trained LLMs compared to those trained with traditional SFT. Through comprehensive evaluations across five representative tasks, we find that RL significantly reduces task conflicts and results in less performance degradation after merging, making RL-trained models particularly well-suited for this process. To unearth the reasons behind the superior suitability of RL for model merging, we conduct extensive empirical experiments and theoretical analyses. Our findings highlight three key factors: (1) On-policy training data in RL control the gradient updates in a smaller magnitude, reducing the risk of overwriting existing knowledge for other tasks in the model. (2) The RL optimization objective, which favors ``\textit{enough is as good as a feast}", progressively reduces the magnitude and the number of conflict parameter updates as the model converges. (3) Joint optimization of positive and negative examples in RL steers the model towards an unbiased task-specific parameter subspace, ensuring robust performance while further preventing parameter conflicts.